@FLRW wrote in post #412: The premise that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation increased between 1941 and 1965 is based on a historical misunderstanding of early experimental measurements, rather than an actual physical increase in the temperature of the universe.

Upon my thorough inspection, your post appears to be more than 95% composed by AI (artificial intelligence). If the evidence I collected from your post accurately demonstrates your AI utilization, then your MIT augmented intelligence (AI) failed you miserably. Do not forget, you opened your post with “This is why SomRek’s IQ is approximately 45-47”, and I’m about to show your inferior intelligence quotient (IQ) even with the addition of your augmented intelligence (AI).

@FLRW wrote in post #412: The universe did not warm up; rather, scientists were using two entirely different methods that yielded slightly different numbers for the exact same static background.

You admit:

1. they measured the same thing.
2. they measured at two different times.
3. their measurements differed.

These points aggregate into a Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation increasing temperature from 1941 to 1965 resulting in a logical inconsistency for the Big Bang Theory requirement for decreasing temperature (see post #376 for mathematical analysis demonstrating this fact).

@FLRW wrote in post #412: Because of this, there is no logical inconsistency with the Big Bang Theory’s requirement for a cooling universe. The difference in values is explained by how these two historic data points were collected:

Your MIT AI failed you, and in just your first few paragraphs, but your MIT AI folly runs even deeper, so I illuminate your logical inconsistency even further!

@FLRW wrote in post #412: 1. The 1941 Measurement (2.3 Kelvin) In 1941, Canadian astronomer Andrew McKellar analyzed the light absorbed by cyanogen (CN) molecules in interstellar clouds. He noted that these molecules were being excited by a background source, calculating a “rotational temperature” of space to be roughly 2.3 K. Crucially, because the Big Bang model was still in its infancy, McKellar did not know he was looking at a relic of the early universe; he simply documented the local temperature of interstellar space. Why this is not a contradiction

You omit, obfuscate, and try to deceive by using a statistical aggregation of McKellar’s median 2.3 K reading instead of his full measurements of 2.5 +0.9/-0.7 K or stated another way, McKellar (1941): M = {x ∈ R | 1.8 ≤ x ≤ 3.4} (see post #376 for details).

You wrote “he simply documented the local temperature of interstellar space”, so he measured and documented your CMBR, yet you proceed to claim it’s not a contradiction, yet McKellar’s measurements differ from Penzias and Wilson (1965): P = {x ∈ R | 2.5 ≤ x ≤ 4.5} or stated another way 3.5 +/- 1.0 K (see post #376 for details); therefore, the two researchers, McKellar and Penzias, measured the same thing, CMBR, and they arrived at substantively different ranges leading to a logical inconsistency with the Big Bang Theory’s requirement for a cooling universe.

@FLRW wrote in post #412: 1. Observational Margins of Error: Early mid-century astrophysics lacked the precise satellite instrumentation we have today. A fluctuation between 2.3 K and 3.5 K represents the technical margins of error inherent to ground-based radio telescopes and chemical spectrum analysis at the time.

I will summarize your argument as “Two scientists measured a right angle. Scientist Alpha used a protractor while Scientist Beta used the Pythagorean Theorem with a ruler. Both scientists determine a 90° angle on the same angle, years apart, decades ago. Logically, because we have better measurement tools now, Scientist Alpha’s measurement is inferior, even Scientist Beta’s measurements are inferior, so they must be excluded because I say they must be excluded”.

Your own mid-century imprecise satellite instrumentation argument in your current post busts your own prior Big Bang belief support arguments about VLBI (recorded in my response post #93) and about Einstein’s General Relativity with the 1919 solar eclipse (recorded in my response post #199 (see also post #61)).

You illogically fantasize that “2.3 K and 3.5 K”, 1941 and 1965 respectively, are the same thing, but those represent two separate statistical aggregation totals in two different decades with a result of an increasing temperature leading to a logical inconsistency with the Big Bang Theory’s requirement for a cooling universe.

Typical of you sorcerer scientists, you Illegitimately eliminate valuable data points, the 1941 data set and/or the 1965 data set, in order to conquer in a debate, but your deception is exposed. You, Mr. MIT AI IQ Scientist, are doing what your astrophysicist high priest Stephen Hawking wrote about in your star bible contribution of condemnation “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”.

@FLRW wrote in post #412: 2. Modern Verification: Modern precision satellites like NASA’s COBE and ESA’s Planck Observatory have measured the CMB’s true current temperature down to a definitive 2.725 K.

Your MIT AI IQ lacks the knowledge that Modern precision satellites like NASA’s COBE and ESA’s Planck are built on data from prior years and decades of data collection which means that your Modern precision satellites were calibrated with flawed data by way of your imprecise satellite instrumentation, as per your own admission in your “1. Observational Margins of Error” section above, resulting in your faith based, nay flawed fantasy, conclusion about a “definitive 2.725 K”.

Your “definitive 2.725 K” is a fraudulent statistical aggregation, not an actual universally uniform data acquisition of “definitive 2.725 K” temperature readings from all directions, and you scientist astronomer astrologers are known for throwing out data that disproves your preconceived notions with said elimination indicators recorded inside of your star bible’s studies. Your astronomer astrologers work their magical, mystical mathematical manipulations (statistical sorcery (making numbers disappear)) in order to arrive at their preconceived notions about CMBR, and their statistical sorcery is excruciatingly easy to locate because of phraseology, such as “outliers” and “compensating for”.

@FLRW wrote in post #412: 3. Proof of Cooling: Astronomers can test the Big Bang’s cooling requirement by looking at the CMB spectrum in the ultra-distant universe (looking back in time). When measuring the CMB temperature in galaxies billions of light-years away, the temperature increases linearly with redshift ((z)) exactly as predicted—meaning the universe was much hotter in the past and has been steadily cooling ever since.

Your red-shift cosmic distance ladder is broken because the “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section in post #361 demonstrated that red-shift requires E to decrease while increasing C in E=MC2 resulting in light’s speed limit soaring beyond 186,000 miles per second, so your “galaxies billions of light-years away” are much, much closer than than “galaxies billions of light-years away”!

Considering your final sentence “When measuring the CMB temperature in galaxies billions of light-years away, the temperature increases linearly with redshift ((z)) exactly as predicted—meaning the universe was much hotter in the past and has been steadily cooling ever since” which it doesn’t because astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, with an international team of astrophysicists and astronomers produced the “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper which explained their discovery of a quasar with an enormous redshift embedded inside a nearby to Earth spiral galaxy with far lower red-shift, so these two stellar objects that need to be the same distance away from Earth due to the collocation are simultaneously greatly separated because of red-shift (both conditions cannot be true). The galaxy is reportedly 300 million light years away while the quasar within the heart of the galaxy is reportedly several billion light years away (source is The Astrophysical Journal, issue 1, volume 620). Under this circumstance, your “galaxies billions of light-years away” is a leap of faith.

Your “Proof of Cooling” just went “poof”.

As I detailed in post #411, your Big Bang Theory is logically inconsistent, falsified, untestable, unparsimonious, and a leap of faith!

You are debating members not the scientists who created the Big Bang Theory.

@FLRW wrote in post #416: OMG, you graduated from Trump University, didn’t you?

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence. If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

What’s the matter, pudding, did Trump University decline your application and now you’re angry and bitter?

Not only are your Big Bang “predictions” a leap of faith, your MIT scientific “prediction” about my education is false. You are a false prophet!

I’m reminding you of my post which you failed to respond in my next post in this thread.

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory and does not need a leap of faith to accept because it is backed by evidence.

Here is the aforementioned reminder for you of my post which you failed to respond.

@FLRW wrote in post #368: Red-shift is not merely red-spectral;

Red-shift is merely red-spectral. Your words that you use, as shown below, solidify the scientific fact that red-shift is merely red-spectral!

I pointed out to you back in post #361 that no scientific method procedure used a man controlled, receding, light emmitting object to measure a purported frequency shift of light (more specifically, red-shift), so your Δλ/λ = v/c formula is akin to the William and Valdemar example of post #118 showing the scientific method (detailed) versus astronomer astrologers red-shift unscientific confirmation of error.

Mr. Nuclear Scientist, you seem unable to address the points I present to you. Your position is so weak that you repeat yourself, but I systematically dissect your arguments, and I methodologically dismantle your scientific fact statements into their proper state as your sacred faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #368: it is a shift toward longer wavelengths and lower frequencies across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, not just visible red light.

You supplied absolutely, positively no scientific method based fact as support for your nonscience “shift toward longer wavelengths and lower frequencies across the entire electromagnetic spectrum” as documented in post #376 (but you couldn’t have known about post #376 yet, but you should have known about it’s predecessor post #53).

Furthermore, you ramble on while neglecting that the “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” of my post #361 addressed to you, above, forces light to greatly surpass your 186,000 miles per second speed limit of light. Your red-shift breaks E=MC2 (and vice versa).

@FLRW wrote in post #368: 1. Terminology: The term “red” indicates the direction of the shift (toward the red end of the visible spectrum), but the effect applies to radio waves, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum Maintains Uniformity

Under the uniformity of the Universe doctrine of your star bible such as the RW Metric (see post #325), if a distant stellar light source component particle emissions all shift toward the “red” end of the spectrum, then a replacement particle emission from the red range-ish replaces the infrared range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the orange range-ish replaces the red range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the yellow range-ish replaces the orange range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the green range-ish replaces the yellow range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the blue range-ish replaces the green range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the indigo range-ish replaces the blue range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the violet range-ish replaces the indigo range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the ultraviolet range-ish replaces the violet range-ish, etc. This describes a cascade effect that keeps the electromagnetic spectrum uniform with particle emissions occupying all the original wavelengths; therefore, astronomer astrologers red-shift Earth reference element base assumption (belief without proof (see post #53)) mismatches with the actual element at the stellar object (see the Las Cumbres Observatory Redshift document at this link), or the astronomers astrologers misinterpret the data at hand in some other manner. Astronomer astrologers interpret the light according to their star bible which is a case of astronomer astrologers high priest Stephen Hawking’s own star bible contribution of condemnation “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”.

@FLRW wrote in post #368: 2. Physical Meaning: Red-shift signifies that the wavelength of light has been stretched (increased) due to the source moving away from the observer or the expansion of space.

Yet, you supply no scientific method based fact as support for your fantasy red-shift, so your red-shift assumption (belief without proof) is a leap of faith.

As pointed out to you, Mr. Scientist, in the “Waveforms, it gets worse for red-shift conjecturers” section of post #376, there is no such thing as you describe.

@FLRW wrote in post #368: 3. Observation: Astronomers detect this by measuring the displacement of known spectral lines (fingerprints of elements like hydrogen) toward longer wavelengths, regardless of whether the resulting light is visible to the human eye.

Speaking of “Observation”, astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, with an international team of astrophysicists and astronomers produced the “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper which explained their discovery of a quasar with an enormous redshift embedded inside a nearby to Earth spiral galaxy with far lower red-shift, so these two stellar objects that need to be the same distance away from Earth due to the collocation are simultaneously greatly separated because of red-shift (both conditions cannot be true). The galaxy is reportedly 300 million light years away while the quasar within the heart of the galaxy is reportedly several billion light years away (source is The Astrophysical Journal, issue 1, volume 620). Red-shift as a distance calculator is falsified.

Your “Astronomers detect this by measuring the displacement of known spectral lines (fingerprints of elements like hydrogen) toward longer wavelengths, regardless of whether the resulting light is visible to the human eye” statement directly contradicts that astrophysicist’s determination. You have faith that the universe is expanding based on red-shift, yet your faith opposes astrophysicist Burbidge’s faith.

Since you fight against your own, FLRW, then you are in a state of faith for the Big Bang.

Recent high-redshift discoveries by instruments like the James Webb Space Telescope continues to refine our models of the early universe rather than overturn the underlying mechanics of redshift.

@Double_R wrote in post #417: Replying to everyone else while skipping over my posts, what a coward. Here’s my simple question yet again; Are all jury verdicts derived on faith? Yes or No?

So says you who continues to hide from the spot where I left off with you when you failed to rationally explain how you arrived at your irrationally convoluted post #89 explanation as I inquired of you in my post #136, so I disregarded your followup post 140. If you want to engage further, then explain yourself, first. I explained this to you last Thursday, and I can continue acting like your posts to me are like the Big Bang, that is, nonexistent! Unless you can muster the courage to respond to my opening inquiry inside of post #136.

My 3 ball example in post #35 demonstrated one does not know (science) as a matter of fact where the ball came from which rolled over the grandpa’s foot, but one may conject (theorize) about the ball, and that “theorize” is faith.

The Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

You are comparing your ball theory to a leap of faith. The Big Bang is not a ball, it is the entire universe.

Debby wrote in post #422: You are debating members not the scientists who created the Big Bang Theory.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence. If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

You Big Bang believers are all united against Christ. You believe your astronomer astrologer Roman Catholic Church priest Georges Lemaître’s preaching the Big Bang as detailed in post #313, but red-shift is merely red-spectral, yet you, self-described Scientist, believe Lemaître’s nonsense nonscience instead of you believing Jesus Christ as detailed in post #214 which means you are not a Christian. You, as a person, who in your heart publicly nullifies the Word of God, you disqualify yourself from being a person with the Wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24).

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

@Debby wrote in post #424: You are debating members not the scientists who created the Big Bang Theory The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory and does not need a leap of faith to accept because it is backed by evidence.

The concept of the word “theory” is “faith” as per the quoted dictionary definition recorded in post #20 and repeated here, again, for convenience:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Obtained from thefreedictionary.com/theory

In definition 1, “accepted” is a synonym for “believed”, so “theory” arrives at “widely believed” which is faith, not fact.

The word “science” (link to thefreedictionary.com/science) fundamentally conveys the concept of knowledge.

A person’s knowledge (science) equates to fact or faith.

The word “fact” (link to thefreedictionary.com/fact) represents absolute existence of a person, place, thing, or event.

Faith is proof of things not seen; in other words, that which one says/thinks, but not sees, is what one believes (faith=belief).

The phrase “Big Bang Theory” and the phrase “Big Bang Belief” are equivalents.

My next post to you demonstrates that you have very bad evidence resulting in you not having Big Bang scientific fact but you having Big Bang science fiction.

The Big Bang theory does not require faith nor in things unseen because the evidence is viewable throng a space telescope. It is scientific theory and not an ordinary theory because it is backed by science and evidence unlike an ordinary theory. Because it is similar to the creation story in the Bible. Both had a beginning, both developed with time and both are expanding that people of faith also accept the Big Bang theory.

@Debby wrote in post #426: Recent high-redshift discoveries by instruments like the James Webb Space Telescope continues to refine our models of the early universe rather than overturn the underlying mechanics of redshift.

Redshift collapses under the Scientific Method

First, I introduce you to an examination of red-shift, which scientist sorcerers base on the so-called doppler effect of light, in the light of the scientific method:

1. Phase: activity
2. hypothesis: red spectral light emits from a star in space indicating the star recedes away Earth and the star’s great distance from Earth.
3. experiment: no test cases.
4. observation: none of experiments.
5. conclusion: a star receding away from Earth with distances of monumental proportion emit red spectral light.
6. confirmation: no experiments to repeat.

Red-shift adherents abysmally failed to completely apply the scientific method. Red-shift as a distance or direction determinant is not science.

Astronomer astrologers, such as Hubble and Lemaître, engaged in circular reasoning between their hypothesis and conclusion, so their logic is flawed.

This circular reasoning is nonsense nonscience with scientist sorcerers saying “I correctly science the proof because I correctly science facts, and you are wrong because I science right”. All the while, those deeply confused people don’t science (know) with the scientific method.

JWST suffers from the same malady as NASA’s COBE and ESA’s Planck which I outlined in post #421 just a few posts above your post, but you blindly post your belief without proof (assumptions).

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. I plan to reply to your post, again, with more scientific fact showing the ridiculousness of red-shift.

Lack of Scientific Method process leaves your Big Bang evidence in a state of science fiction, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

The assertion that redshift is not a valid determinant for cosmic distance or direction contradicts the established scientific consensus and observational data. Astronomers use cosmological redshift as a primary tool to measure the distances to distant galaxies and quasars, based on the correlation established by Edwin Hubble between an object's recession velocity and its distance.

Redshift occurs because the expansion of the universe stretches the wavelength of light traveling through space, shifting it toward the red end of the spectrum. While redshift primarily indicates recession (movement away from the observer), it allows scientists to calculate how far away an object is using Hubble’s Law. 

Sidewalker wrote in post #430: 

Look at the fool flip! Poor Sidewalker, you convey the Truth of God and Big Bang science fiction proofs discussion send you flipping!

@FLRW wrote in post #434: The assertion that redshift is not a valid determinant for cosmic distance or direction contradicts the established scientific consensus and observational data. …snip

@Debby wrote in post #426: Recent high-redshift discoveries by instruments like the James Webb Space Telescope continues to refine our models of the early universe rather than overturn the underlying mechanics of redshift.

Waveforms, it gets worse for red-shift conjecturers

You are using the nonsense nonscience doppler effect of light based on your assumptions, not the scientific method.

Sound waves are atmospheric tightly localized particle vibrations passed from particle to particle; on the other hand, light waves are projectile particles.

As an example of the doppler effect, when a fast moving train blows it’s whistle while passing a person, then the pitch increases on approach to the person (sound wave compression) and the pitch decreases as the train races toward the horizon (sound wave decompression) as the train leaves the person; however, red-shift conjecturers have no such scientific method proof for the doppler effect of light except for their hypothesis revealing their conclusion joined with their conclusion revealing their hypothesis which puts such scientist sorcerers in an infinite loop of circular reasoning.

The Doppler effect of sound is based on the scientific method.

The Doppler effect of light is science fiction without any scientific method proof.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #433’s demonstrated scientific fact that red-shift is your leap of faith. I plan to reply to your post, again, with more scientific fact showing the ridiculousness of red-shift.

Lack of Scientific Method process leaves your Big Bang evidence in a state of science fiction, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

The redshift remains undisputed. Scientists still rely on redshift everyday. It remains one of the fundamental pillars of modern astrophysics and cosmology.

So says you who continues to hide from the spot where I left off with you when you failed to rationally explain how you arrived at your irrationally convoluted post #89 explanation as I inquired of you in my post #136, so I disregarded your followup post 140. If you want to engage further, then explain yourself, first. I explained this to you last Thursday, and I can continue acting like your posts to me are like the Big Bang, that is, nonexistent!

What an unbelievable coward. The only one hiding here is you. Since you want to play games with all the posts pretending it's all being hidden somewhere, let's recap our entire discussion:

Me #10: My rolling-ball analogy. The point was simple: if you observe a ball's direction and speed, can you use that information to determine where it was before you first observed it?

You #24: You responded that I was confusing human observation of a rolling ball with the absence of human observation of the Big Bang.

Me #33: I explained that you were taking a simple analogy designed to establish one logical principle and demanding that it explain all of Big Bang cosmology at once. I then expanded the analogy to seven additional balls, explaining that if their trajectories all traced back to the same source, and predictions based on that source were subsequently confirmed, we would have a reasonable basis for concluding that source caused the observed events.

You #35: You responded with your three-ball analogy, where the observer doesn't know which ball hit his foot, where any of the balls came from, or what caused them to start moving.

SkepticalOne #39: Even another person pointed out that you had twisted the analogy to avoid the question and specifically noted that you weren't answering the question being asked.

Me #46: I stripped the analogy back down to its simplest form and asked you two very straightforward questions:

Q1: Can you deduce the backwards path in which that ball rolled prior to your initial observation at point A?

Q2: Can you calculate where in that path the ball would have been 5 seconds earlier given that you have observed both its path and its speed?

Me #65: I asked whether there were any responses to #46.

You #74: Instead of answering Q1 and Q2, you accused me of hypocrisy and doublespeak because I had expanded the analogy to multiple balls while objecting to your expansion.

But that's not what I objected to. I objected to you changing the variables of the analogy and then claiming that the resulting scenario disproved the original point.

Me #76: I explained that distinction and again asked the same two questions. I also explained that your three-ball scenario didn't refute my point because determining where an object came from and determining what caused it to start moving are separate questions.

You #89: You explained that you were proceeding chronologically and therefore your #89 response to #65 had been written before you reached #76.

Fine. But that still didn't answer #76.

Me #113: I pointed out the chronology:

46: My rolling ball analogy

65: My reminder to you about 46

74: Your response to 46

76: My rebuttal to 74

89: Your response to 65, as if 74 came before 65 and as if 76 didn't exist

And I told you I was happy to hear your response to #76.

You #114: You again claimed that you had already answered my questions in #24 and #35.

But #24 was simply: You confused human observation (rolling ball) with the absence of human observation (Big Bang).

And #35 was your three-ball analogy.

Neither one answered Q1 or Q2.

You #136: You then explained at length why your #89 response was chronologically legitimate, because #76 came later.

You also introduced the CMBR argument and claimed my logic was broken because I supposedly misunderstood the direction of temperature change.

Again, we're now deep into the thread and the two questions from #46 still haven't been answered.

Me #140: I explained again that your analogy was attacking a problem you had introduced rather than the point my analogy was making.

Then I asked you a much simpler question:

Yes or No, are all jury verdicts merely expressions of faith?

Me #353: You still hadn't responded to #140, so I reposted the entire thing for you.

You #386: You said you disregarded #140 because I hadn't first addressed your #136.

Then you repeated your three-ball argument and concluded: The Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

Still no answer to the jury question.

Me #388: I asked you again:

Is every guilty jury verdict that has ever been rendered a matter of faith? Yes or No?

Me #417: After watching you continue to respond to everyone else while skipping over my posts, I asked the same question again:

Are all jury verdicts derived on faith? Yes or No?

You #427: And here we are.

Instead of answering it, you're back to #136.

You say I need to explain my response to your chronology argument before you'll engage with anything else.

So let's be clear about what's happening here.

I am not asking you a new question.

I'm asking you the same question I asked in #140.

I'm asking you the same question I repeated in #388.

I'm asking you the same question I repeated again in #417.

And now, rather than answer it, you're pointing back to another post and telling me that I need to respond to that one first.

You have spent far more effort explaining why you don't have to answer the question than it would take to actually answer it.

You keep responding as though the sheer number of post references somehow constitutes an answer. It doesn't.

So let's forget #136.

Let's forget #114.

Let's forget #89.

Let's forget the three-ball analogy.

Let's forget the CMBR.

Just answer the question you've now been asked 3 times, and now 4:

Are all jury verdicts derived on faith? Yes or No?

Hey, just to remind you guys...Big Bang Theory, no leap of faith...So 15 pages of tit for tat getting nowhere, never to get anywhere...Unless of course in the meantime, some genius comes up with an undeniable explanation of creation and existence.

There is no such thing as an explanation that can't be denied. You can explain something to someone else but you can't understand it for them.

These debates aren't about "truth", they're about logic and reason. You either follow it's principals or you don't. If you do, then these conversations are useful exercises of it. If you don't, then you're just a waste of space pretending to care about reality when you don't. Either way, I do it for the exercise, because I find that even the latter is useful. George Carlin one said, "never argue with stupid people, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience". I disagree, why give them that edge?

@FLRW wrote in post #434: The assertion that redshift is not a valid determinant for cosmic distance or direction contradicts the established scientific consensus and observational data. …snip

@Debby wrote in post #426: Recent high-redshift discoveries by instruments like the James Webb Space Telescope continues to refine our models of the early universe rather than overturn the underlying mechanics of redshift.

Astronomical Observations, red shift sinks further into the abyss

Astronomers discovered a quasar with an enormous redshift embedded inside a nearby to Earth spiral galaxy with far lower red-shift, so these two celestial objects that need to be the same distance away from Earth due to the collocation are simultaneously greatly separated because of red-shift (both conditions cannot be true). The galaxy is reportedly 300 million light years away while the quasar within the heart of the galaxy is reportedly several billion light years away (source “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper readily publicly available from Table of contents for issue 1, volume 620, The Astrophysical Journal). Red-shift as a distance calculator and/or age determinant is falsified.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #436’s demonstrated scientific fact that red-shift is your leap of faith. I plan to reply to your post, again, with more scientific fact showing the ridiculousness of red-shift.

Lack of Scientific Method process leaves your Big Bang evidence in a state of science fiction, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Cosmological redshift remains the cornerstone and best supported scientific explanation for the behaviour of light from distant galaxies.

@FLRW wrote in post #434: The assertion that redshift is not a valid determinant for cosmic distance or direction contradicts the established scientific consensus and observational data. …snip

@Debby wrote in post #426: Recent high-redshift discoveries by instruments like the James Webb Space Telescope continues to refine our models of the early universe rather than overturn the underlying mechanics of redshift.

History, red-shift rapidly morphs into blue-shift

Sirius was known as the Star of Isis in ancient Egypt, and human witness described Sirius as red, but Sirius is blue, now. This change describes a stellar u-turn, yet astrophysics declare that it’s impossible, but human witness indicates that the change from red to blue occurred, so your red-shift falls apart based on human witness recorded history.

You dusbelieve human witness, but you believe scientist sorcerers. You are very confused.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #441’s demonstrated scientific fact that red-shift is your leap of faith. I plan to reply to your post, again, with more scientific fact showing the ridiculousness of red-shift.

Lack of Scientific Method process leaves your Big Bang evidence in a state of science fiction, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

True, there will always be someone out there keen to deny the obvious.

And as for reality...Well, I am therefore it is...Even though logically and reasonably I shouldn't be and nor should it be.

Nonetheless, relative to the demand, scientific theory does not require a leap of faith....Though I will leave you and Kermos to wrestle with that one, because you do it for the exercise...Which in fact, is the reason why I do it.

And if you don't respond to this, then we can both be sure that we are not arguing with stupid people.

@FLRW wrote in post #434: The assertion that redshift is not a valid determinant for cosmic distance or direction contradicts the established scientific consensus and observational data. …snip

@Debby wrote in post #426: Recent high-redshift discoveries by instruments like the James Webb Space Telescope continues to refine our models of the early universe rather than overturn the underlying mechanics of redshift.

Red-shift is devoid of the Scientific Method

No scientific method procedure used a man controlled, receding, light emmitting object to measure a purported frequency shift of light (more specifically, red-shift), so you are left with a red-shift leap of faith.

Scientific method validation of the Doppler effect for light does not exist; in contrast, scientific method validation of the Doppler effect for sound exists. The result is that red-shift is merely red-spectral.

This post supplements my post #275.

A Big Bang cosmic distance ladder’s foundational rungs are a leap of faith.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #443’s demonstrated scientific fact that red-shift is your leap of faith. I plan to reply to your post, again, with more scientific fact showing the ridiculousness of red-shift.

Lack of Scientific Method process leaves your Big Bang evidence in a state of science fiction, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

You got it wrong. The Doppler effect on sound if different because sound needs air to travel, but light travels through a vacuum. Scientists use the relativistic Doppler effect formula to calculate light shift accurately which is not possible with sound.which needs a medium to travel.

The Doppler effect for light is the change in frequency and wavelength of light when a light source and an observer move towards or away from each other. When a light source moves away from you the light wave stretch out. This longer wavelength shift the light towards the red end of the light spectrum. Scientists call this the redshift.

Get your basic right.

@FLRW wrote in post #434: The assertion that redshift is not a valid determinant for cosmic distance or direction contradicts the established scientific consensus and observational data. …snip

@Debby wrote in post #426: Recent high-redshift discoveries by instruments like the James Webb Space Telescope continues to refine our models of the early universe rather than overturn the underlying mechanics of redshift.

Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift

Red-shift requires that the maximum speed of light shoots above 186,000 miles per second.

“A photon of violet light, therefore, has more energy than a photon of red light” (from 4.1: Wave Properties at LibreTexts).

Einstein’s formula E=MC2 has high relation to red-shift. Red-shift’s high energy, high frequency light deteriorates into low energy, low frequency light at the time of emission, and astronomer astrologers believe this reveals age, distance, and/or direction of celestial objects. Einstein’s formula E=MC2 is in permanent equilibrium between energy (E) and mass (M) and speed_of_light (C). Since E=MC2 needs to be maintain equilibrium with the red-shift massless (M) photon, then the commutative property of mathematics keeps the equation’s balance by moving energy (E) to the speed_of_light (C). In essence, E=MC2 forces an increase to the speed of light under the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. redshift.

I obtained the following from 4.5: The Doppler Effect at LibreTexts with respect to red-shift:

The relationship between the degree of shift in wavelength to the speed of the object is found by:

Apparent wavelength/true frequency = true wavelength/apparent frequency = 1 + recession velocity/wave speed.

Since the speed of light in a vacuum, c, is a constant, the speed of the object can be found with the following equation:

Δλ/λ = v/c

Where Δλ is the change in wavelength, λ is the normal or laboratory wavelength of the light, and v is the relative speed of the source toward or away from the observer.

No scientific method procedure used a man controlled, receding, light emmitting object to measure a purported frequency shift of light (more specifically, red-shift), so your Δλ/λ = v/c formula is akin to the William and Valdemar example of post #118 showing the scientific method (detailed) versus unscientific confirmation of error.

You need to mess with adjusting the C (constant representing the speed of light at 186,000 miles per second) in Einstein’s E=MC2, but you are left with a MESS in so doing because light pushes beyond 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles per billion years which translates to light moving faster, much faster than your C of 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles per billion years (a.k.a. velocity well beyond 186,000 miles per second), so light speedily traverses the 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 mile distance in some unknown amount of the time, for example, maybe 2 days. I remind you in my post #199 to you regarding Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory where I detailed that Rowland explained a time element is absent from E=MC2.

Scientific method validation of the Doppler effect for light exists not; in contrast, scientific method validation of the Doppler effect for sound exists. The result is that red-shift is merely red-spectral.

This post supplements my post #275.

A Big Bang cosmic distance ladder’s foundational rungs are a leap of faith.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #445’s demonstrated scientific fact that red-shift is your leap of faith. I plan to reply to your post, again, with more scientific fact showing the ridiculousness of red-shift.

Lack of Scientific Method process leaves your Big Bang evidence in a state of science fiction, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Some very low IQ bot wrote-"Red-shift requires that the maximum speed of light shoots above 186,000 miles per second.

Well this premise is incorrect. Redshift does not require the speed of light to exceed 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/s).

The speed of light (c) is a universal constant and remains unchanged regardless of the motion of the source or observer. Redshift is caused by a change in the wavelength and frequency of the light, not its speed.

1. Doppler Redshift: When a light source moves away from an observer, the light waves are stretched, increasing their wavelength (shifting toward red) while the speed remains constant.
2. Cosmological Redshift: As the universe expands, the space through which light travels stretches, lengthening the light's wavelength over time.
3. Physics Principle: The relationship is defined by c=frequency × wavelength. Since c is fixed, an increase in wavelength (redshift) results in a corresponding decrease in frequency, with no change in velocity. 

Km says,

E=MC2 forces an increase to the speed of light under the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. redshift.

This statement is incorrect. The speed of light (c) is a universal constant and does not increase or change under the Doppler effect or redshift.

Instead, redshift involves a change in the frequency and wavelength of light, while its speed remains fixed at approximately 3×108 m/s. When a light source moves away from an observer:

1. The wavelength increases (stretches).
2. The frequency decreases.
3. The energy of the photons decreases relative to the observer.

The equation E=mc2 describes the equivalence of mass and energy, not a variable speed of light. The Relativistic Doppler Effect accounts for the constant speed of light by incorporating time dilation and length contraction from Special Relativity, ensuring that all observers measure light traveling at c regardless of their relative motion. 

Keep trying Charlie Brown, kick it!